According to a media advisory sent Thursday from Braley’s Washington office, Braley is planning to “jump aboard a Union Pacific Train on Friday in Fairfax headed to Marshalltown,” but Fairfax and Marshalltown are located outside of Braley’s current congressional district and inside the district in which he is campaigning for reelection.
It probably varies from railroad to railroad, but who makes the decision to permit such press event train rides? Is it a campaign event, or fact finding? It is not the railroad’s responsibility to interpret and enforce congressional ethics rules. None the less, the railroad’s name ends up mentioned in any resulting controversy.
As a campaign trip, the campaign committee or benafactors of the candidate should make the arrangements and pay for such events. This article claims he used federal government funds. That is a different matter. As for “allowing”, that is not the term. Anyone who shows up at the ticket office with the money to charter a train will be accommodated with the the full fare collected at time of purchase and the equipment and personnel are available. When it comes to politics, all candidates can, through their campaign committees, purchase a whistle stop campaign if they wish. Aside from the allegation that it was paid for by the government rather than the campaign committe, there is nothing suspicious or ethically wrong in the railroad selling the service, and in fact by charter, may be required to offer the service to whoever wants to charter a train if it can be accomodated by equipment, labor, and schedule
No. It is not. It’s the railroad’s responsibility to run their railroad. Congress has the responsibility to interpret and enforce congressional ethics rules.
In my mind, it’s all a moot point anyway. If you read the article, it isn’t about ethics or what’s right and what’s wrong. It’s about politicians running for office, and trying to see how just how much sh…mud they can fling at each other. I look forward to the day when None of the above becomes an option on ballots. [|(]
I decided a while back that if I wanted to be President (or hold any other elected office), I could be successful at a VERY low cost by legally changing my name to “None of the Above”, and paying the registration fee to get my name on the ballot. What do you think?
First, a Republican newspaper slamming a Democratic Congressman…go figure!
Second, neither the “press release” nor the article in the Iowa Republican sates who is paying for the trip, nor do either one state it is a campaign trip…the press release simply states he intends to “rally support for infrastructure” not campaigning, which sounds a lot like he is doing the job he is paid to do.
The above comment is being made by someone who is a conservative by the way, but also thinks slanted press is bad for everyone no matter what your political leanings are.
To answer the question, as Henry stated, you charter the train, just like historical groups and business groups.
Don’t hear anyone complaining when the NHRS rents the UP E9s or either of the steam engines…of course, he just may have been planning to ride Amtrak….poor fellow.
Taking away the politics side of the argument - Unless management puts the kaibosh on it, on our railroad who rides on the train is up to the conductor, and who rides in the cab is up to the engineer, subject to established rules (for us, no more than four in the cab).
In this case, UP’s going to make the big decision.
And back on politics - anyone who thinks a politician isn’t using his/her office as a platform for campaigning right from the day he/she is sworn in has their head buried in a hole. Every public appearance is a “look at me, see what I’m doing for you” opportunity.
In Nevada, the option is, “None of the listed candidates,” and is separate from the write-in line.
Very few people use it. It’s possible that someone may not be able to pick someone to vote FOR, but just about everybody can pick who they want to vote AGAINST.
EDIT - Since I entered the above some genius in Federal judiciary robes ruled that ballot entry unconstitutional. Something about not being able to fill the office if NOTA received a majority of the votes…
Not holding my breath waiting for somebody to charter a train on the LA&SL route through Sin City. Who would they impress? A bunch of lizards and desert tortoises?
The story seems clear to me. Rules are rules. It says this:
“— For the second time in two weeks, Congressman Bruce Braley (D-IA) has used taxpayer resources to sponsor a campaign event outside of his current congressional district in violation of House ethics rules.”
Unless you read the rest of the article. I can’t tell from the story, if the area is in his district or not. It seems to say that the ara was added to his district, and therefore would be fair game. The only thing clear to me from the article, is that there is a disagreement between the two candidates over this.
The rest is just so much static in an election year. "Oh yeah?? " “Yeah!!” “Oh Yeah??” “Yeah”
The article, and most campaigns anymore, remind me of an ad for a local radio station. “Listen to our station, because we don’t suck as bad as the other guys.”
I would imagine the clarity of the article depends on one’s political leanings. Like you, I could not decipher whether Braley was right or wrong in planning to campaign in those towns. The second paragraph which is supposed to be damning is as clear as mud. The story is poorly written AND poorly edited. None of us, based on this article, can possibly know if Braley did anything wrong.
House ethics rules explicitly prohibit Members of Congress from using official House resources, paid for by taxpayers, for purposes outside of their current district. This prohibition extends to new geographical areas, like Fairfax and Marshalltown, that are being added to Members’ districts as a result of redistricting. Members may campaign in these new areas, but not at the taxpayers’ expense.
The fact that the article says “House ethics rules explicitly…” Doesn’t make it neccesarily true beyond the shadow of a doubt. The article certainly does nothing to support that statement. I agree with PigFarmer1 above.
So much of the campaign process now is just half truths and mud-slinging… This article is no different. One side says something is explicit, and you want to believe it. The oth
Wow. I hilight one word in red, and all my text turns blue. Maybe I need to get my eyes checked. Oh well, next month when they upgrade the forum again, it will be some other quirk I have to deal with. [xx(]
Post script: I went to a link from the article that purports to be the ethics code violated in question. The link is to the “Joint Reolution Reguarding Redistiricting”. In essence, it’s rules about spending Government funds to try and sway the redistricting process. It’s not about campaigning for re-election at all. Just from that distorted attempt at a half-truth, I’d be inclined to side with Congressman What’shisface over challenger Whoozit.
Unless the Conressman charters a steam locomotive to run a whistle stop tour, I don’t care.
I have not dismissed or believed anything. You are the one who seems to be dismissing the claim of the article because you feel it has not been proven.
All I am saying is that the article has made its claim in objective terms. What more can news do? I don’t expect news to prove something as though it were offering a court trial. Everybody is free to choose to believe it or not.
From the article:
Braley is planning to “jump aboard a Union Pacific Train on Friday in Fairfax headed to Marshalltown,” but Fairfax and Marshalltown are located outside of Braley’s current congressional district and inside the district in which he is campaigning for reelection.
Stop it already. [X-)]That is a rule about redistitricting, not about campaiging for reelection. You quoted the last sentence of the rules. Quote the title. [:-,]
Yes it is about running for reelection, but central point is about how that is affected by redistricting. So the rules about redistricting are paramount. That is why they are linked to the story.
The redistricting is an issue in the story because the new district has been added to Braley’s district. So he is traveling to that new district using House funds. Even though that new district has been added to his district, he is not permitted to travel to it using House funds, according to the rules.
Read it again. That whole link is about the rules for traveling to an area to try and influence the redistricting process. It says NOTHING about traveling to those districts to campaign for reelection. You can’t make it something it isn’t. That’s like using a football rulebook for a baseball game. [D)]
Anyway…how ‘bout those railroads? Even though there is an election this year, they just just keep on haulin’ freight.